COVID called Toronto’s bluff

The real scandal is not that Canada sent “approximately 16 tonnes of personal protective equipment, such as clothing, face shields, masks, goggles and gloves” to China at the beginning of February. Maybe it’s a bit surprising China would need it: It makes all that stuff, and is not known to struggle with emergency production. This is a country that recently built two new hospitals in two weeks. But as a Global Affairs Canada press release put it, fighting coronavirus at its source was “vital to … protecting the health and safety of people around the world.”

Here’s the real scandal: We have spent the better part of two decades congratulating ourselves about how much we learned from SA RS- Cov-1, which killed 38 people in Ontario in 2003. “If there’s any country in the world that’s as prepared as it’s going to be, it’s this one,” the chief of staff at Toronto’s Humber River Hospital told Global News in January. Now Humber River is one of several facilities running low on the most basic supplies necessary to fight the much deadlier SA RS-COV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) while keeping our stalwart medical professionals safe. Some have started rationing face masks, even as they require more personnel to wear them.

The problem seems to be most acute in Ontario. Hospitals are accepting donations of masks, goggles, gowns and gloves. University labs, dentists, veterinarians and even artists are being asked to donate. A stockpile of expired masks is being used in “lower- risk areas,” The Canadian Press reported this week. Canadians should not have to be relieved about a stockpile of expired medical equipment. It is clear that despite all our boasting, we were once again disastrously unprepared. That will need answering for, as will much else.

When the shops are open again and funeral homes return to a normal pace, Canadian governments in Ottawa and in the provincial capitals will have to answer for similar timelines: At some point, call it Day X, their anti-coronavirus efforts will peak — if they haven’t already — at a level of intensity they will almost certainly wish they had implemented on Day X- minus-14 or 20. Each earlier announcement, viewed in hindsight, will likely seem terribly inadequate. Self- isolation for people arriving from hot zones became self- isolation for everyone arriving from abroad. Voluntary quarantine became mandatory. The list of businesses asked to close grew and grew, and then the request became an order.

I often argue that Canadian politics is too concerned with what politicians think and believe, as opposed to what they do. But this is a case where we need to know why politicians acted on the timeline they did.

The answers will not necessarily reflect badly on them. We should want politicians to take advice from experts, and it seems quite a bit of received public health wisdom is being rewritten on the fly. Remember “travel bans don’t work”?

Nor should any government take lightly implementing what British Conservative MP Steve Baker described on Monday night in the mother parliament as “a dystopian society.” Among many other things, the package of emergency measures granted royal assent in the U. K. on Wednesday extends the legal retention period for fingerprints and DNA, allows for the detention and testing of anyone suspected to be infected, and empowers governments to prohibit any public gatherings and close any businesses, schools or childcare centres they see fit — for two years. Baker unsuccessfully lobbied for half that.

“Libertarian though I may be, this is the right thing to do,” he said, his voice shaking. “But, my goodness, we ought not to allow this situation to endure one moment longer than is absolutely necessary to save lives and preserve jobs.”

Generally speaking, though, our Liberals are not especially zealous when it comes to protecting civil liberties. I haven’t detected any reluctance in their incremental rollout of anti-coronavirus measures. Rather, at each stage, I have sensed a familiar sense of supreme confidence. The ludicrous power- grab they attempted in implementing their own emergency measures package this week suggests they aren’t very angst- ridden about going too far.

And with the Trudeau gang, sometimes things are just inscrutably weird. On Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland reacted with something approaching anger to reports that the United States might deploy troops near the Canadian border to intercept people crossing into the U. S. illegally. “We are very directly and very forcefully expressing the view … that this is an entirely unnecessary step, which we would view as damaging to our relationship,” she told reporters on Parliament Hill.

Why on earth should she even care?

It’s one of many questions housebound Canadians are left to ponder. At this point, if not before, most of us probably wish our governments had erred on the side of overreaction, or at least early reaction. Nine times out of 10, that’s a bad instinct — especially when civil liberties lie in the balance. But when we can’t even assure doctors and nurses a reliable supply of face masks, gloves and visors, I can understand such concerns striking many people as a tad indulgent.